Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Fwd: [cc-community] Australian Federal
Heh. Yes,even drafting guidelines seems to be a bit 'all too hard', given that we still only have *draft* guidelines from all those urgent criminal copyright reforms done in 2006 :) -Original Message- From: wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jessica Coates Sent: Wednesday, 5 May 2010 11:52 AM To: wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Fwd: [cc-community] Australian Federal Well, the Gov2.0 report itself was very specific that it should be retrospective - in fact recommendation 6.5 is all about retroactive licensing of already published material. But the Government response has only agreed to this 'in principle' - they've left it up to a set of guidelines to be determined by the Attorney-General's Department as to how all this will actually work in practice. And based on response times from previous reports, I can't imagine we'll see the guidelines anytime soon. Jessica -- Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 18:10:14 +1000 From: Craig Franklin cr...@halo-17.net Subject: Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Fwd: [cc-community] Australian Federal Government commits to CC BY as default To: 'Wikimedia-au' wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 009601caeb61$3abcb080$b03611...@net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 What can I say, this is absolutely awesome! Will this take effect retroactively, or will it only be new stuff that's CC-BY? Either way, it's a tremendous step forward! -Original Message- From: wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of John Vandenberg Sent: Tuesday, 4 May 2010 3:04 PM To: Wikimedia-au Cc: Jessica Coates Subject: [Wikimediaau-l] Fwd: [cc-community] Australian Federal Government commits to CC BY as default Woo hoo! This is fantastic news. A big thank you to all involved. -- Forwarded message -- From: Jessica Coates j2.coa...@qut.edu.au Date: Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:54 AM Subject: [cc-community] Australian Federal Government commits to CC BY as default To: cc...@lists.ibiblio.org cc...@lists.ibiblio.org, cc-commun...@lists.ibiblio.org cc-commun...@lists.ibiblio.org, c...@lists.ibiblio.org c...@lists.ibiblio.org Big news from the Australian Government on the issue of access to public sector information. In an official response released yesterday, the Federal Government has agreed to 12 of the 13 recommendations to come out of the Government 2.0 Taskforce report released last December ? including Recommendation 6.3, which states that Creative Commons Attribution should be the default licensing position for PSI. In addition, the government has also agreed that the new Information Commissioner currently being established will issue guidelines to ensure that: by default PSI is free, open, and reusable; PSI is released as quickly as possible; PSI may only be withheld where there is a legal obligation preventing its release. when Commonwealth records become available for public access under the Archives Act 1983, works covered by Crown copyright will be automatically licensed under an appropriate open attribution licence. The response also includes an undertaking that the Attorney-General?s Department will examine the current state of copyright law with regard to orphan works (including section 200AB of the Copyright Act 1968), with the aim of recommending amendments that would remove the practical restrictions that currently impede the use of such works. This is the single biggest commitment to CC licensing and open access principles by Australian government, and should mean that the majority of Australian government material will soon be available under a CC licence. The fact that both the response and the announcement have been released under CC BY is a good start. The assignment of responsibility for implementation of the commitment to the new Information Commissioner is also an encouraging move, and will hopefully see a more coordinated approach to IP policy across the Australian government as a whole. The response is available here and a blog post from Finance Minister Tanner is available here. Jessica Coates Project Manager Creative Commons Clinic and Creative Commons Australia ___ cc-community mailing list cc-commun...@lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l -- ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l End of Wikimediaau-l Digest, Vol 46, Issue 1
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Conroy - Measures to improve safety of theinternet for families
Worth noting that both EFA and GetUp are coordinating on this issue: so Wikimedians who in their personal capacity are interested in getting involved in the campaign against such laws should get in touch with one of those organisations...and watch for more. http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/GreatFirewallOfAustralia http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/GreatFirewallOfAustralia?dc=974,56 ,2 http://nocleanfeed.com/ Kimberlee From: wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sent: Wednesday, 16 December 2009 10:44 PM To: Wikimedia-au Subject: Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Conroy - Measures to improve safety of theinternet for families My own position is very similar to Liam's - personally opposed to the filter as a free-thinking Australian citizen who believes it should be up to parents what their kids see and the government has no place telling adults what they can or can not see. Additionally I think it could have speed effects and we're already one of the slower countries broadband-wise in the developed world. I also agree with Liam though that we need to be clear with the outside world that we are not Wikipedia, and it is a fine line (promoting something while not being responsible for it - which is not irresponsible, but rather acknowledging the responsiblity correctly lies elsewhere). cheers Andrew 2009/12/16 Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com Yes, indeed this is a good question and an important issue. On a personal basis I am completely opposed to the filter and I imagine most Wikimedians in Australia are. However, I would caution that the Chapter cannot be seen in word or deed to be responsible for Wikipedia. This was a problem faced by Wikimedia UK in both the virgin killer and the National Portrait Gallery issues - the UK chapter was very careful not to place itself as the official spokesperson for Wikipedia. Of course, the mandate of the Chapter is to advocate for Free Cultural Works and in that sense being involved in political lobbying is something that it can/could/should do. We have previously made a submission to a government inquiry for example. Making a statement about the filter or similar actions is within the chapter's powers. But... in the event that Wikipedia were to become blocked or was caught up in some scandal around this issue, the Chapter can only describe what Wikipedia policies and practices are - it cannot be seen as responsible for the content and have a policy for how to make Wikipedia unblocked or what-have-you. my 2 cents, -Liam wittylama.com/blog Peace, love metadata On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 5:26 AM, Andrew orderinchao...@gmail.com wrote: Matt, thanks - good question. As yet, no it doesn't have an official position - I have forwarded this to the committee list so one can be reached promptly. Cheers Andrew On 16/12/2009, Matt inbgn mattin...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Does the chapter have a position on this proposalhttp://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/115 ? Should it have a position? If it has a position, what should it be doing to advance that position? Cheers, Matt ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] The A E Bert Roberts photograph collection
Interesting. FWIW: - 'copyfraud' is a word that has been used in the academic literature to label overly broad or ambitious assertions of copyright (asserting copyright that doesn't or is unlikely to exist). See Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=787244rec=1srcabs=319321). - An assertion based on 'sweat of the brow' is much more questionable following the IceTV decision by the High Court. If it's just work/running the photo through the processor, then it's questionable whether such digitised photo is copyright-protected even in Australia. However, when such cases have been raised in the UK they have been based on 'extensive work' getting the photograph to faithfully reflect the original. We haven't had that case come to court in Australia; reasoning in IceTV suggests it may not hold up here (anymore). Kimberlee Weatherall -Original Message- From: wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of John Vandenberg Sent: Sunday, 8 November 2009 1:53 PM To: Wikimedia-au Subject: Re: [Wikimediaau-l] The A E Bert Roberts photograph collection On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Craig Franklin cr...@halo-17.net wrote: Hi Peter, Unfortunately the physical objects that the collection is based upon (the glass plate negatives) are in a locked cupboard somewhere in the QM warehouse, so the possibility of getting our hands on them and making our own copies are fairly remote. I've deliberately worded the info in the infobox to be slightly ambiguous - QM *claim* copyright on the digitisation (much the same as the NPG in the UK), but there has not been a legal case here in Australia to my knowledge or the knowledge of QM's copyright people to confirm whether the sweat of the brow doctrine would hold up in an Australian court. We only say that QM assert copyright over the digitisation, not that we recognise that particular claim. And because the digitisation part is then released under a free, acceptable licence, the whole shebang is fine to go on Commons. the template is here: [[commons:Template:QM_Infobox]] watchlist it! ;-) The images are tagged PD because they are unquestionably PD in the United States, which is what really matters in this case, but it's worth mentioning that there is a possible bit of CC-BY-SA-3.0 in there just so that nobody in Australia or the UK gets caught out. A similar example of a claim like this is: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phineas_Gage_Cased_Daguerreotype_WilgusPhoto2008-12-19_Unretouched_Color.jpg and the derivative http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phineas_Gage_Daguerreotype_WilgusPhoto2008-12-19_CroppedInsideMat_Unretouched_BW.jpg Legally we are better off having a CC image than a PD image - the definition of the latter can change. For cases like this, it would be nice to have a CC-0-digitised-attribution license which requires attribution of the digitiser, but does not assert copyright over it. nice work Craig! -- John Vandenberg ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
[Wikimediaau-l] Australian Higher Education Supplement today - Wikipedia story
Rather negative Wikipedia story in The Australian higher education supplement (page 1, also here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25037270-12332,00.htm l). Kim Kimberlee Weatherall Senior Lecturer TC Beirne School of Law The University of Queensland St Lucia, Queensland, 4072 Work Telephone: +61 7 3346 7503 Mobile: +61 403 762 544 ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Sydney Morning Herald
Interesting indeed. They seem to be proposing an interesting blend of community and control. Wonder how that will work out for them? My personal favourite line is that It's very much used by many people because it covers many topics and it's the No.1 search result on Google. It's not necessarily that people go to Wikipedia That just doesn't strike me as true, but I guess I don't know the evidence. Kimberlee Weatherall From: wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of private musings Sent: Friday, 23 January 2009 7:36 AM To: Wikimedia-au Subject: [Wikimediaau-l] Sydney Morning Herald an interesting one; http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/biztech/here-comes-britannica-20/2 009/01/22/1232471469973.html talking about some new developments in Brittanica's approach it's a shame we (the chapter) didn't get a mention, or a quote or something - but never mind :-) the story is top of the 'top 10 stories of the day' currently at smh.com.au, so it's clearly getting read, by the way. cheers, Peter PM. ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Sydney Morning Herald
Aren't there a couple of different issues going on here - on the one hand, ability to speak for the chapter, say, on chapter type issues, and on the other hand, ability to speak about Wikipedia/Wikimedia? Maybe, Angela, you'd be comfortable talking about Wikipedia/Wikimedia from an informed perspective - but might refer journalists to Brianna for official 'chapter type' stuff? Just a thought. Kim From: wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of James R. Sent: Friday, 23 January 2009 3:21 PM To: Wikimedia-au Subject: Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Sydney Morning Herald So you're saying that we should only add Brianna's details at this time? Is there really any problem with you speaking on behalf of the chapter? You've been the Australian point of contact even before the chapter was developed... why not? Would it require approval from the committee? - James On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Angela bees...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/1/23 James R. e.wikipe...@gmail.com: I updated the press contacts for Australia on foundationwiki not so long ago, so these are believed to be correct. If Angela and Brianna don't mind, I can add their contact phone numbers to officialwiki - please let me know. I don't mind, but I'm not sure that's the right thing to do as I can't speak on behalf on the chapter. Angela -- James R. [[User:JamesR]] English Wikipedia Administrator Wikimedia Australia Member ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
